Narciso v. Garcia
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff Estelita P. Garcia filed a complaint for damages against defendant Eloisa R. Narciso. Narciso filed a motion to dismiss, alleging lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and improper venue. Garcia opposed the motion and sought to have Narciso declared in default, claiming the time to file an answer had elapsed. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied Narciso's motion to dismiss and declared her in default. Narciso filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied. Subsequent referrals for mediation and judicial dispute resolution (JDR) occurred. The RTC denied Narciso's motion for reconsideration, stating she could no longer assail the default order. Narciso's motion to lift the order of default was also denied. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's denial, holding that Narciso failed to allege fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable negligence, nor did she show a meritorious defense. The Petition: Narciso filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, claiming the CA committed grave abuse of discretion in affirming the order of default.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in affirming the order of default issued against petitioner Narciso. Whether petitioner Narciso was properly declared in default.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulling and setting aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, lifting the order of default against petitioner Eloisa Narciso, and directing the RTC to allow her to file her answer and proceed with the case. The temporary restraining order issued by the Court was dissolved.
Ratio Decidendi
On whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in affirming the order of default issued against petitioner Narciso: The Supreme Court ruled that the CA committed a serious error in affirming the RTC's order of default. The Court emphasized that Section 3, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court requires a motion by the claiming party, notice to the defending party, and proof of failure to file an answer within the allowed time before a declaration of default can be made. In this case, Narciso had filed a motion to dismiss, which, under Section 1, Rule 16 of the Rules of Court, is a permissible remedy before filing an answer. The filing of a motion to dismiss suspends the running of the period for filing an answer. Therefore, Narciso was not yet in default when her motion to dismiss was denied; she still had the balance of her original period, but not less than five days, to file her answer, computed from her receipt of the notice of denial. The RTC's declaration of default at that stage was premature and erroneous. Furthermore, Narciso had the right to file a motion for reconsideration of the order denying her motion to dismiss, and this motion also suspended the period to file an answer until it was resolved. The CA failed to recognize these procedural rights of the petitioner, thus constituting grave abuse of discretion. On whether petitioner Narciso was properly declared in default: The Supreme Court held that Narciso was not properly declared in default. Her filing of a motion to dismiss before the answer was filed was a valid procedural step that suspended the reglementary period for filing an answer. The subsequent denial of her motion to dismiss did not automatically place her in default, as she was entitled to the remaining period to file her answer, which was at least five days from notice of denial. Moreover, her filing of a motion for reconsideration of the denial of her motion to dismiss further tolled the period to file an answer. The RTC's declaration of default was therefore premature and contrary to the Rules of Court. The CA's affirmation of this premature declaration constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Main Doctrine
A defendant who files a motion to dismiss is entitled to the balance of the period for filing an answer after the denial of the motion, and cannot be declared in default until this period has elapsed. Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration of the denial of a motion to dismiss suspends the period to file an answer until the motion for reconsideration is resolved.